Scenario

[LemonSwan]

5 people jointly own a house. Inherited from their parents. Currently used as a joint holiday home for all the family.

1 person wants their monetary share of the house.

Legally due to the way the will was set up they have no monetary entitlement to the value of fifth of the house. The will stated that their ownership of the house was not as a monetary value and if they did not want to use, own or contribute to maintenance costs of the house then they could walk away but could not take any value. This has been confirmed by a lawyer as true and apparently would likely stand in court.

But said person wants money from the house and has contributed maintenance for a number of decades totalling to around 20k. So has every other person bar sibling who did not have any funds.

So what would you think is fair?

To summarise: Legally the entitlement is zero. But morally this is a group of siblings and this is having a real impact on family relations so everyone is trying to be reasonable.

Further difficulties arise from the fact the house is pretty much impossible to value until they actually sell it due to its odd location. And the remaining do not want to sell it as it was the parents last wishes the house stays in the family for their and future generations use. So it’s essentially a monetary burden greater than the value of a free holiday a year rather than a monetary asset.

There’s also the issue of what people can actually afford to give, which is not a fifth of the house for all siblings. And even if they could scrape it together it or some siblings covers others - it sets a precedent which overrides the will and then anyone could do the same going forward. In worst case scenario leaving the final person essentially having bought the house bit by bit in order to fulfill the parents wishes of keeping it in the family - which was expressly against the wishes of the parents. They did not want their offspring to have to do that.

What is the mumsnet answer please?

A - Give nothing
B - Give maintenance costs back
C - Give 5th of original monetary value at time of inheritance
D - Give 5th of guessed current monetary value now
E - Some combination of above or something else
F - Court should decide.

A or F

What happens when all the siblings die? It will just become a millstone round the neck of the next generation.

Don't know what the parents were thinking making a will like this. Far better as even split and get rid of the house!!

My sdad was in a similar position. The old family home was left to 5 siblings who were supposed to use it as a holiday home but due to deaths and divorces it ended up with 11 owners all with different levels of interest/financial input/desire to visit.
It ended up being sold to stop all the arguing

A. Absolutely A. No question about it.
Especially as Sibling 6 was in the A category.
If you were to buy out the sibling who wants buying out, you may well alienate sibling 6.
It's unfortunate for the sibling who has contributed over the years but also their decision to walk away.

Are all of your children's children expected to pay towards the upkeep too? They use the place, after all.

It might be better if anyone who stayed there put eg £50 per person per night into a bank account which is used to keep the place going.

A

I'm a trainee legal professional OP and this thread has absolutely blown my mind. We write Wills daily and have never come across anything like this, it's fascinating. I can understand what the original owners were trying to do by keeping the property in the family but I wonder how much legal advice they were provided with at the time to explain just how difficult this arrangement would be to manage further down the line. It's such a bizarre way of leaving a house in a Will, it could almost be a film plot.

This is hard. If everyone scrapes the money together it's literally for nothing as they won't get to use it any more so they're just out of pocket with no gain. Maybe the maintenance costs back is fair ish

What I meant is they won't get to use it any more than they already do, not that they won't get to use it again

Well it would be a good film plot except nothing exciting happens 🤣 It’s just a well loved house in a lovely place where we all holiday.

Ok plot thickens. Have got a vital piece of information incorrect! Sibling 6 is actually still an owner. So that bit about the lawyer saying that’s why it would stand I don’t know I must have misconstrued that. But it apparently it would stand - the exact legal rationale of which I am unclear about.

So all 6 own
So 3 siblings pay maintenance and visit
sibling 4 paid maintenance, visited but wants buying out
Sibling 5 doesn’t pay maintenance and visits
Sibling 6 hasn’t paid maintenance, doesn’t visit and stays out of it but is a paper owner still.

I don’t think many want to do Option A as they do wish to appease the buy out sibling and repair relations.

I vote for A

So what has the grabby sibling said when it's pointed out that no one is benefiting financially from this set up/will bequeathment and that if anything it is a financial burden not an asset, that the will specifically said you can't take the cash instead but you can walk away?

What's their answer to that? I can't fathom how they are justifying this to themselves

So all 6 own

No they dont. A maximum of 4 indivudals can be listed at proprietors with the land registry. So knowing how they ownership is setup is important. Is they propety owned by a company or trust (of with all 6 are owners or benificarys) or is it (leglly) owned by 1,2,3 or 4 of the siblings who are currently just following the will.

You can find this out quite easilly by buying a copy of the title deed from the land registry (£3.00).

The issue is if its owned by a company or trust they everyone MUST follow the rules set by the company/trust (and potentally change those rules with enough support). However if its owned directly by 4 of they 6 siblings and 1 of those 4 is the one who wants to sell they CAN force a sale.

What a tangled issue this all is!
It seems legally and practically there are all kinds of complications which no one had prepared for and is worked as wonderfully well as it has thus far because up to now everyone has been lovely and cooperative and played nicely.

End of an era maybe?

This thread had completely messed with my head 🤯 How can a will dictate what happens to a property years and years.... (forever?) after the original owner dies?
I do have one question that I need clearing up; if the will is so iron clad how is it possible that Sibling 5 doesn’t pay maintenance and visits? Surely they should be paying their share?

@TaraMock I don't believe any will is so iron clad that for generations the original terms can stand. I think that if every owner (even perhaps a majority) want to sell then that could be agreed to and done. But unfortunately, sibling relations may deteriorate if there is disagreement about this.

I mean I can certainly see why sibling 5 wants to keepit going!
Doesn't have to pay anything but still gets all the benefits!
I'm surprised siblings 1-4 haven't raised this as an issue before and can see why 4 is now considering walking -presumably they wouldn't hand over 3 grand for their siblings family to go to tenerife for their holidays but are expected to pay to maintain a house sibling 5 has as much right to and use out of as them.

I'm intrigued to why sibling 6 doesn't visit - do they get on with the other siblings? (This is nothing to do with the OPs question, I'm just nosy!
Agree it would make a great film!)

I think the fairest way is to agree now and get something new in place saying from x date its either all in or all out - to be in each of the 6 parties has to pay an equal amount of maintainence each year which entitles them to use of the property OR they are out, which means they have no entitlement to it, either accessing it now or if it comes to be sold at any point in the future.

Sibling 5 genuinely can’t afford to pay. Would be unbelievably unkind to ban them given the circumstances but I won’t go into that as it’s private.

Sibling 6 has their own house next door, so do visit, just not staying in the house IYSWIM.

I feel I have totally messed up the voting on here now with my mistake so wondering whether the thread is serving any useful purpose now. Well I suppose it was purposeless anyway because really it’s what the 5/6 can agree on that’s the only thing which matters. But it has been a real dilemma and it is hard wrapping head around what’s fair and what’s not given the complexities so was interesting to get views.

Surely the value of the thread is on the conversation and questions that might trigger thoughts which help you pose constructive questions/suggestions into the mix while the family navigate these troubled waters.
Can't imagine why you feel the voting is the bit that counts most.

Surely what is unkind is expecting the other siblings to subsidise sibling 5? If they can't contribute they should do what the other sibling not paying has done and not use the property.

Look I really feel that they have to sell and split it 6 ways (the 6th sibling who walked away a reduced amount based on that they’ve not contributed to upkeep).

The situation is only going to get more complicated and fractured as to who is responsible for paying, when and how long people can use it for etc.

There is no way that the proceeds of the sale could be withheld from the inheritors if all were in agreement surely, you can’t stop something from being sold once it has been gifted can you?

If the house is in trust, the property belongs to the trust itself, not the individuals. The financial value is therefore irrelevant.

It has a financial value but also an upkeep cost. Trustees can bring an end to the trust if a property has to be sold. (As I understand it)

I should add that if a Will leaves a property to a group of beneficiaries in this way, it should have been set up as a Will Trust. I do not understand how it can now be owned by the 5 or 6 individuals personally. It doesn't make sense from a legal perspective as the only way to pass it on to the next generation would be if the initial 6 individuals were only granted a life interest.

@NamelessTemptress01 The financial value of the life interest is probably zero if there are costs but no income arising.